Here is a question, how is the Army of the Confederation organized? Does it
use a version of the British Regimental system?? How do American and Canadian
units fall into this. The U.S. does use a Regimental system of its own, but
our regiments are numbered (with nicknames). I wonder how this would work...
Typical U.S. Regiments: 16th Infantry (dates back to the Civil War) Regular
34th Armor (WWII) Regular 7th Cavalry (At least Civil War) Regular
Would Infantry Regiments be assigned a region and given a 'local' name:
16th Infantry- say in North Alabama and Tennessee- The Nashville and
Knoxville Rifles?? 34th Armor: 34th Royal Tank Regiment?? 7th Cavalry: Her
Majesty's American Cavalry Regiment? Or... The Garry Owen Dragoons!
What do ya'll think??
Randall spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Here is a question, how is the Army of the Confederation organized?
Does it
> use a version of the British Regimental system?? How do American and
name:
> 16th Infantry- say in North Alabama and Tennessee- The Nashville and
Well, I agree with Los that you'll want to preserve unit history (except maybe
some not so hot units may be disolved and ones with too much esprit d"America
may be modified to be more Crown loyal).
But I note that Canadian Regiments have names...
The Princess Patricia's Light Infantry The Lake Superior Scottish The Southern
Alberta Light Horse The Governor General's Foot Gaurds The Royal Canadian
Horse Artillery Etc.
It might make sense for the US (under NAC military leadership) to revive the
civil war style of naming units (in addition to unit designators) so that they
were 'The 1st Pennsylvania RIfles' and such. Preserve even older US tradition.
And fits well with things like The King's Own Hussars, and The Royal Scots
Borderers, etc.
Then we'll get battles like this: NAC 2nd Georgia Mechanized Infantry with
elements of the 3rd Battallion Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders
supported by elements of the Coldstream Gaurds opposed by NSL Kampfgruppe
Stehl and elements of the Solarian 3rd People's Army.
(It just seems more interesting).
/************************************************
> Randall Case wrote:
> [quoted text omitted]
I believe that regiments form teh Canadian and AMerican contingents woudl
retain there own historical designations with NAC (TOE of course)
In Rot Hafen I allude to: 5th SAS (this unit traces it's lineage back to 5th
Special Forces Group)
504th reg't (Tracing it's lineage back to 504th PIR (Parachute Infantry
Regiment)
Your examples could alos be used in the scheme of things... What matters is
les sthe names but the hitorical lineage from which the names came from in the
first place.
> Here is a question, how is the Army of the Confederation organized?
> At 09:37 AM 10/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
Does it
> use a version of the British Regimental system?? How do American and
In the British (Commonwealth) army during WWI, battalions from Australia,
Canada, India, etc. were often given numbers and assigned to line divisions.
Later, when the Canadians formed their own divisions and corps, they still
used numbered battalions. These battalions were formed from a
core of traditional "regiments" which, in Canada/Britian/Australia etc
usually had a name. So, you might have ended up with 416th Battalion (The
Toronto Scottish) or some such - I just made that up by the way, no
offense meant to anyone in the TorScots.
I was tossing about some ideas for developing further the Army of the New
Anglian Confederation (I'm a SGII player primarily, and haven't read DS or
the other books yet - so forgive me if I miss something already covered
in the histories...), and figured that using a system like that would work
well to keep both the histories/traditions of the regiments alive, and
give them a coherent feeling across the whole Confederation.
For example, I'm painting up a unit of NAC troops which I'm calling the 123rd
Battalion, Royal New Anglian Light Infantry (The Queen's Own Rifles of
Canada). It's a long name, but that is quite common if you look at real
British/commonwealth military history. The QOR are a reserve regement
here in Toronto, though they have a proud history dating back to the Riel
Rebellion, The Fienian Raids (those darned Irish - trying to take over
Canada on the sly), and the Boer War, plus WWI, WWII, etc. Like I said
-
it keeps the traditions, but gives a coherent feel to the Army. Why not have
"7th Cavalry Regiment (The Gary Owen Dragoons)"...
The British Regimental system has a lot going for it from a
history/tradition/morale point of view, and they've certainly won their
fair share of wars, but the Americans are no slouches when it comes to winning
wars either. Canada presently uses a modified version of the British system.
Australia does too. In Canada, a Regiment of infantry is three battalions
(Regular force, the reserve regiments are only one nominal battalion, most are
actually a reinforced company in size), and a regiment of Armour, Engineers,
Artillery, etc. is one battalion. The British have a number of one battalion
infantry regiments, but have been going through a long
process of consolidating, creating "super-regiments" with multiple
battalions. "The Parachute Regiment" has three battalions, for example.
British armoured regiments are all one battalion in size.
I would suggest a system something like this:
Armoured Regiments: would be 1 battalion size, numbered (with name) ie: 347th
Armour (The Fort Garry Horse)
Infantry Regiments: would be 1 or 3 battalions in size, numbered (with name)
ie: 123rd Battalion, RNALI (The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada)
Artillery Regiments: would be 1 battalion in size, numbered ie: 34th Regiment,
Royal New Anglian Horse Artillery
(A note: There is a historical difference between "Artillery" and "Horse
Artillery" regiments - the Horse units were the more mobile ones with
lighter guns... In modern parlance, "Horse Artillery" units would be
largely self-propelled, lighter equipment. "Artillery" units would be
heavier, sometimes reserve formations, but equipped with the really big stuff
ie 200mm, MLRS batteries, etc. etc.)
And so on. Brigades and Divisions would be numbered formations, drawn from the
available Regiments. In Canada, we do not have any normally formed
Divisions (though there is a HQ unit for 1 Canadian Division - it has no
assigned forces, or perhaps I should say it has ALL the forces, 'cause the
regular Canadian army all together makes up about one modern mechanized
division). Brigades are the largest formation we keep fully staffed, etc.
However, our army is structured for operations within a larger
Division/Corps level system - we would plug our forces into larger NATO
or other allied formations in wartime. The Australian Army is experimenting
with developing units that are Brigade sized, but structured with a much
higher capability for independent operations - they have huge areas in
the North to cover, and not many troops to do it with, so they are designing a
system where the largest formations regularly fielded will be Brigades. This
works with the assumption that modern war is too deadly for big formations
(too easy to nuke, etc) and that because individual troopers and tanks are
becoming very powerful, the force densities needed on the ground in a given
area of conflict will be much lower than they have needed to be traditionally.
Individual troopers now carry hundreds of rounds of ammo, grenade launchers,
unguided rockets, etc. etc. A WWI trooper carried maybe
50 or 80 rounds of ammo if he was lucky, and a rifle with bayonet -
maybe a sharpened entrenching tool if he felt mean. With modern
communications, tactical mobility and the availability of accurate supporting
fire, a single squad of infantiers can put out the firepower of a WWII platoon
or company. Give them another couple hundred years to develop, and extrapolate
this further. The ultimate example of this is Heinlein's Starship Troopers,
where a single platoon of CAP Troopers took on a whole
planet (the Skinnies) - each trooper covered dozens of square
kilometres, and carried nukes. The armies of the Stargrunt universe should be
somewhere in the middle. You still need plenty of grunts on the ground to do
the real foot slogging work, but not the mass numbers seen in WWII. If this
assumption holds true, I figure the new Australian Army model for organization
makes a lot of sense. Keep the regular organizations at the Brigade and Battle
Group size (for those who don't know, a Battle Group would be, for example, an
Infantry Battalion reinforced with a Squadron
-
that's a company in British/Canadian/Australian terms - of tanks, some
engineers, some signals troops, and artillery / air defense support -
you would get two or three Battle Groups out of each Brigade). For
particularly large actions, Divisions could be formed, but these would be more
of an ad hoc unit with a command structure and support elements added rather
than a formation kept around all the time...
To get a bit more specific:
Mechanized Brigade
2 or 3 Battalions Infantry (from one Regiment) 1 Regiment Armour (one
battalion) 1 Regiment Artillery (this might include air defense, or the AD
troops could be a separate unit) 1 Service Battalion (the logistics support) 1
Signals Squadron (company size unit providing EW, Comms, etc) 1 HQ, with
attached police, intelligence, operations staff, etc etc 1 reinforced squadron
of Engineers (maybe 2 companies worth) 1 Field Ambulance (hey, not quite a
MASH, but close in size)
The service battalion would be larger than a regular battalion, and provided
with field workshops, etc. so they can do independent support of the heavy
equipment in the Brigade, as well as all the normal service duties and
carrying all the food, ammo, etc. etc.
did I miss anything? Oh - air support? Maybe attach a Composite
Squadron of VTOL transports and gunships, as well as a Remote Sensing unit
which
would control RPVs, recce / commo sattellite launches, etc.
This hasn't really addressed the whole question of the "Regimental Family"
- in the British/Canadian tradition, when you start your career in a
regiment, it becomes your home for the rest of your career. Re-badging
to another regiment is a BIG DEAL. Even General Staff officers who are no
longer technically part of their regiment will feel a strong afiliation for
it, and are expected to work as advocates for their regiment. In Canada,
there are jokes made (not too loudly) about the "Van Doos Mafia" - the
Royal 22nd Regiment (La Vingt-Deuxieme Regiment Royale du Canada, or
something like that) presently has a lot of high ranking general staff
officers, who are seen (by people who aren't VanDoos) to be looking out for
their own... This "Regimental Family" system has its' detractors, but it
certainly encourages an esprit de corps that is lacking in many other
militaries'. The kind of tradition that develops in this system is a great
morale booster. People are very proud of their "family" and will fight hard to
defend its' honour, etc. Well, some of the time. We do tend to get rather
complacent with extensive periods of peace, but that is another issue.
Anyway, there's my two-cents worth. Thoughts, anybody?
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty: Canada presently uses a modified
version of the British system.
> Australia does too. In Canada, a Regiment of infantry is three
If that. I've been with Regiments that had 40 people (armoured recce) and
others that had about 100 effectives (infantry). Reinforced company is hopeful
in many cases.
and a regiment of Armour,
> Engineers, Artillery, etc. is one battalion. The British have a
This does jibe. It makes sense as to why some units don't use Battalion
naming... (If you've only one Battallion in you unit, why refer to it as 1st
Battalion? Just call yourself the Brockville Rifles).
> I would suggest a system something like this:
Yeah, but in the future, whats a Battalion? For cost and mobility reasons,
probably smaller than that of today.
> Infantry Regiments: would be 1 or 3 battalions in size, numbered
I like the Royal North American Light Infantry....:)
> And so on. Brigades and Divisions would be numbered formations, drawn
I quibble with the word Modern.....
> Brigades are the largest formation we keep fully staffed, etc.
Okay, pardon my ignorance....
Canadian Guys Section about 10 guys 10
Platoon 4 sections 45
Company 3-4 Pltns 180
Battalion 3 Companies 575
Regiment 1-4 Battalions 575-2000
Brigade???? Division????
I know I read somewhere that a US Division was way bigger (unless I've got it
backwards) than a PACT division. (Was it 10,000 to
4-6,000 or something like that?) Maybe I've got it backwards. I
know the Russians liked numbers.
How does that compare to British and American formations?
I'm thinking in 2183, we can get some idea of formation sizes:
Section (Inf): 6-8 guys
Section (PA): 4-6 guys
Platoon (Inf): 25-35 guys
Platoon (PA) 20-24 guys
Company (Inf): 110-150 guys
Company (PA): 65-85 guys
Battalion (Inf): 350-550 guys
Battalion (PA): 275-305 guys
etc. Except in full out, hot war, planetary assaults, you'd rarely see
more than a battalion of hi-tech troops deployed, more likely
companies and platoons. They'd be stiffened by colonials, who may have unit
sizes more like today (and tech more akin to today.... it
takes a while for hi-tech to reach the frontier), since they don't
get shipped around and air dropped.
With modern communications,
> tactical mobility and the availability of accurate supporting fire, a
Of course, in WWII, it was 50,000 rounds per KIA. In Vietnam, 200,000. Volume
of fire isn't necessarily an improvement, but not everyone knows that. It
helps if that fire hits something. But trained expensive troops that have high
logistic overhead will force formation size cuts.
> To get a bit more specific:
And 1 Company of Snipers, if anyone learned anything from the 20th century...
probably deployed 1 Pltn per Inf Battalion with maybe 1 Pltn for independent
ops.
Nice work, BTW.
/************************************************
> At 05:16 PM 10/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
Kinda' sad, ain't it? A good friend of mine was in a reserve infantry regiment
in Nova Scotia (the North Nova Scotia Regiment, I believe), and it had about
500 effectives. That's the largest I've ever heard for a Canadian reserve unit
in peacetime. 'Course, there's not a whole lot to do out there in the
Maritimes, now that the Spanish caught all the fish...
:)
> I would suggest a system something like this:
You bet! Still, there is no getting over the need for grunts on the ground
to do the work. If you have a high-tech force with 10 guys, and a
low-tech
force with 100 guys, the high-tech force must have a BIG edge in tech or
skill or both, 'cause 1 casualty is 10% losses. Modern doctrine says a
unit suffering 20 - 30% casualties should be retired (at least
temporarily) as combat innefective, for rest, refit and resupply. With 10
guys, take 2 and you're out?? There is still something to be said for numbers.
On "modern" (here I go using that again) naval vessels, they use many times
the number of crewmen to do what a merchant vessel can do with only a few. Not
counting all the extra stuff like weapons and EW that happens on a naval
vessel, they still want all kinds of extra guys so that when the ship takes a
hit, there are enough people left to pick up the pieces and keep fighting.
Even in the future, there will be a need to keep a certain volume of live
bodies in fighting units, or even minor casualties will have a major effect on
combat effectiveness...
A "battalion" in the future may have less troops, but I figure it will
fulfil the same general tactical place on the battlefield. Actually - I
think what I mentioned earlier about "Battle Groups" is more likely. I
could see a Battle Group of hi-tech troops being sent in as the
"stiffeners" working with larger formations of local militia. Certainly Battle
Groups or Brigade Combat Groups (which is what the Aussies are
building - see my earlier posting).
> And so on. Brigades and Divisions would be numbered formations,
Well, "modern" is a relative thing... we have higher tech than the Somalis...
Actually, we are slowly getting geared up with some newer equipment. I hear
they are considering a general issue of M203 grenade launchers to
infantrymen - not one per section, but one to each rifleman. Also, we
are
getting the new American Javelin (?) anti-tank missile. That's a
gee-whiz
toy that works "fire and forget" - way better than the 30 lb.
Carl-Gustav
bazooka we've been toting for the last 30 years... They have new tactical
radios, new combat uniforms coming (hey, we get camo finally), new APC's
(a
cool variant of the same vehicle we sell to the US as the LAV25 for the
Marines, and to Australia - ours is bigger, with a 25mm chaingun and
carries a full section (8 to 10) infantrymen, rather than the 6 that the
Marine vehicles carry. Our old but reliable Leopard tanks are getting new
turrets, and I hear they got a deal on ammo. Now they are issuing 20
rounds per guy in combat situations rather than the usual 5 - this is
Canada, we take care of our grunts...;)
> Brigades are the largest formation we keep fully staffed, etc.
A Canadian Battalion is actually closer to 850 or 900 troops. There are
three rifle companies, a combat-support company with a recce platoon, a
mortar platoon with 8 81mm mortars, an anti-tank platoon with a bunch of
TOW missile systems, and an assault pioneer platoon. There is a
logistics/supply company, with transport, administration, maintenance
platoons and a field kitchen detachment. The headquarters has a signals
platoon, the command post staff (ops people, etc), a detachment of
police -
I think about a section worth, and somewhere in there are medical types who
provide a battalion aid station and have ambulances.
We don't deploy infantry regiments as a "regiment" - these are
administrative organizations mostly. An armoured regiment (battalion size
unit) is slightly smaller, figure about 650 to 750 troops. Same with the
artillery. A fully stocked brigade is about 5,000 troops. A mechanized
division is usually in the 15,000 to 18,000 size - especially in the US
military. US Heavy divisions are BIG. The lighter divisions, say the 10th
(Mountain) Light Division at Fort Drum, New York State, are smaller. I
think the 10th is just under 10,000 troops - though it is a Light
Infantry formation and travels, well, light. They have much less of the
logistical baggage needed when you have big armoured vehicles to worry about.
As an aside to all this, I went to university in Kingston, Ontario (at
Queen's University, where - for those following the discussion about
anthems - we stood and sang "God Save the Queen" at my Convocation
ceremony
- I'd never heard it sung by several thousand people before, and it was
actually quite moving, but I digress from my digression...). Kingston is
just across the border from Watertown, New York - just outside of which
is Fort Drum, home of the afore mentioned 10th... Some wag at Queen's wrote a
paper a few years back analysing the role and purpose of Fort Drum from a
strategic point of view. He determined that while the location had
historically been important, there was infact no present strategic value for a
large military force to be based there. It is not near any major land
transportation routes (ie railroad hubs), and is relatively far from anything
(ie major airports or ports) to get the division anywhere. In fact, it was
seen to be quite inefficient to house any major regular force there at all.
Unless, of course, the Americans had planned the strategic requirements of a
military intervention across the border, into Canada... Then, the base makes
perfect sense. A force of light infantry could move to quickly sieze the Saint
Lawrence Seaway (which terminates at Kingston), and be well placed between
Toronto and Ottawa (Canada's largest city and
its' Capital) on Ontario's major road and water routes... Ooops. I
never heard what the effect was when this paper was published, but it did make
us
think abit.... Those darned Americans - do we have to go burn the
Whitehouse again?
:)
> I know I read somewhere that a US Division was way bigger (unless
Soviet doctrine is rather different from NATO's - that is a discussion
for another day, I'm afraid... (I don't have time this evening...)
> How does that compare to British and American formations?
OK so far if little in the way of integral service and support units -
but these would be assigned at a higher level of command anyway, and
distributed to companies and platoons as needed.
> Battalion (Inf): 350-550 guys
I think too small, for the reasons I outlined above. You need warm bodies, and
though there will be more automation in the future, there might also be more
maintenance requirements (unless somebody figures out, finally, how to
make hight-tech stuff soldier proof). Plus, there will be military
specializations that haven't been invented yet: "power armour repair guy" and
"nanobot recce team controller"...
> Battalion (PA): 275-305 guys
> Except in full out, hot war, planetary assaults, you'd rarely see
Absolutely!!
> With modern communications,
There was the incident of the SAS patrol of 8 guys in the Gulf who took on and
beat an Iraqi infantry Battalion. The Battalion commander later commented that
he thought he was fighting an enemy force of similar size. Firepower is a good
thing if the troops using it know what they are doing. Besides, guns that can
lay down lots of fire don't always have to be used that way. Canadian troops,
with full auto C7 rifles (we build M16's and use an optical sight rather than
the carrying handle) are still trained to shoot single shots at a time, using
small 3 to 5 round bursts only in dire
need...
> And 1 Company of Snipers, if anyone learned anything from the 20th
Snipers can be a very good thing! The Canadian infantry battalion now deploys
a "Recce Platoon" as I mentioned above. These guys are the
creme-de-la-creme of our regular infantry (not counting the special
operations and airborne stuff we have kicking around), and have often gone
through commando training, etc. A battalion's snipers live in the recce
platoon. I forget how many there are assigned to each battalion - but
they are worth their weight in gold!!
> Nice work, BTW.
Thanks! Glad to have joined this list (which I did yesterday) - lots of
good stuff going on.
I hope I can see/meet people around the Toronto area at cons. etc. My
friends Ken Winland (who's been on this list for a while) and Dave Graham have
been doing demos of Stargrunt, FT, etc. around the area for a couple of years,
and I've been joining them and helping out for a while now too.
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> Those darned Americans - do we have to go burn the
LOL!! Sorry sir, that particiular 'bon fire' is something we southerners
reserve for ourselves!;) But heck, the place does need it...;)
I'm the usual NAC player around these parts, so I'll toss out what I do. For
the most part, I assume that the NAC Army absorbed all three armys and their
traditions. Regular formations were absorbed and their traditions stand, here
is an example:
1st Brigade (The Devil Brigade), 1st NAC Infantry (Space Mobile)- The
Big Red One
1st Battalion, 16th Infantry (Wolf Pack) (light infantry) 1st Battalion,
Hampshire Regiment (light infantry) 2d Battalion, Cold Stream Guards
(mechanized infantry) 1st Battalion, 5th Artillery Regiment (Hamilton's Own) C
Company (Fighting Aces), 2d Battalion, 34th Armoured Regiment (Dreadnoughts)
The Division wears the 'red one' shoulder flash, and carrys the honors of the
1st U.S., 1st U.K., and 1st Canadian Divisions. Odds are that the following
two brigades would have more 'British' and 'Canadian' units in them. However,
none of
the units are pure national units- all units would have a mix of NAC
citizens (my company of the 34th Armour would sure enough have Americans,
Canadians, British, and South Americans in it).
A second unit that I use is this outfit:
31st Brigade, NAC Territorial Force (24th NAC Infantry Division)
1st Battalion, Alabama Territorial Regiment (The Queen's Own Huntsville
Rifles) 1st Battalion, Tennessee Territorial Regiment (Duke of Nashville's
Light Infantry)
1st Battalion, Georgia Territorial Regiment (The North Georgia Highlanders) D
Squadron, Alabama Yomanry (Montgomery Hussars) 1st Battalion, Washington Light
Artillery Regiment (New Orleans' Own)
This Brigade is a rather common Territorial Brigade that has been assigned to
a Regular Division. The 31st is a mixture of units drawn from several
southeastern states, and includes a historic unit that is part of the
Louisiana Territorial Force (the Washington Light Artillery saw plenty of
action during the Civil War). This brigade is a roundout component to the 24th
Infantry, I would imagine that other Territorial units would flesh out
mobilization divisions.
As an amusing side note: the Queen's Own Huntsville Rifles saw action once
during a scenario which featured a 'cross Channel' assault by units from the
FSE! Alabama mountain boys defending Dover and Kent! LOL!!
"Hey sarge, whar did ya say them 'Euries' landed?"
"Down yonder by Dover town, I reckon 'bout 10 klicks. Guess them 'red coats'
gonna hog up all the action"
"Well, I's never been able to miss a good shinny. I came over to this 'a here
England to see some action, and by gommit, I's mean too- Ya'on 'to
Sarge?
"Awwwwright... on your feet ya bunch in-bred, yankee-want-to-be's,
there's a war on and Her Majesty has sent ya'll an ingraved invitation! Gonna
show them city slicker, limey soldier boys how REAL riflemen shoot! MOVE IT!!"
> > Those darned Americans - do we have to go burn the
Amen!
(snip, and the following dialect slightly adjusted)
> As an amusing side note: the Queen's Own Huntsville Rifles saw action
Followed by a soul-chilling Rebel Yell: "YEEEEEEE HAH!"
(It ain't just the Brits who hold on to their traditions....)
--a Virginia Gentleman
I think that all the regiments would be assigned local names where they are
not given titles like the Prince of Wales' own Texans or whatever. The
Canadians still do this I think, anyone? The Brits have always been strong on
regimental history so they would keep old numbers and titles where possible.
Obviously those units that opposed the British take over won't be reformed
under the NAC.
Tony. twilko@ozemail.com.au
> At 09:37 23/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
Does it
> use a version of the British Regimental system?? How do American and
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> It might make sense for the US (under NAC military leadership) to
The "Civil War" styles (State names, usually in the format "XYZth Statename
Infantry") above were for the Volunteer and Militia regiments, both anscestors
of today's National Guard regiments. Regular Army units
do not trace their anscestry to state-affiliated regiments.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> > regular Canadian army all together makes up about one modern
Yeah, that requires tanks which don't have stress fractures in the turret
armor...:)
> I know I read somewhere that a US Division was way bigger (unless
Well, a US division has (depending on when in the past 20 years you are
talking about, how fully manned, which permutation on which TO&E you want)
about 15K men. Russians have something like 8K. Part of this is
that while the US division has a full-up logistical train, the Russian
division does away with nonessentials like hospitals, kitchens, trucks to
transport rations, etc. Basically they are set up to supply fuel and ammo and
nothing else.
> Of course, in WWII, it was 50,000 rounds per KIA. In Vietnam,
Not that fighting in triple-canopy jungle with untrained undisciplined
conscripts had anything to do with combat effectiveness. Coupled, of course,
with the fact that this was before the US really understood and trained for
the implications of assault rifles being the standard infantry weapon.
> And 1 Company of Snipers, if anyone learned anything from the 20th
I don't use a lot of snipers in my TOs. For one thing, you can't really just
hand a guy a gun with a scope and say "PFC Smythe, you are now a sniper. Go
forth and kill." It just doesn't work that way. To make a GOOD sniper (and a
bad one isn't enough of a threat to make the cost of the scope worthwhile)
takes some expensive training and a fair bit of talent.
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> You bet! Still, there is no getting over the need for grunts on the
You can use that as a rule of thumb for divisions and other large formations.
Because when they take 20% casualties, that translates out to 90% casualties
in the infantry batallions. Smaller formations can fight until 100% casualties
in some circumstances.
> Actually, we are slowly getting geared up with some newer equipment.
I
> hear they are considering a general issue of M203 grenade launchers to
? That's interesting.
> getting the new American Javelin (?) anti-tank missile. That's a
That's a SWEET weapon. Lighter than a Dragon, and it can punch tank armor, and
it's fire and forget.
> strategic point of view. He determined that while the location had
He's got to remember that US bases are NOT sited strategically, but based on
Congressional seniority.
> there at all. Unless, of course, the Americans had planned the
We had the plans on the books until the 1930s, when Roosevelt went apeshit and
ordered them destroyed. Or at least that's what I heard.
> There was the incident of the SAS patrol of 8 guys in the Gulf who
With how much air support?
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> The "Civil War" styles (State names, usually in the format "XYZth
IIRC they had minimal/no air support because they couldn`t afford to
stay in one place long enough to call and guide it in. They just relied on
accurate fire and mobility.
> You can use that as a rule of thumb for divisions and other large
You are, of course, absolutely correct. In individual circumstances, smaller
units can, and in many cases have, fought until destroyed
completely - hey let's not forget Camerone, when a unit of Foreign
Legionaires fought the Mexican Army until there were only four or five left.
They were out of ammo, surrounded, and completely cut off. So they fixed
bayonets and charged. The survivors (only a couple) were later repatriated,
with great respect.
What I meant was that for sustained operations the ability to absorb
casualties is vital for a military organization, even a small one. You
might have to fight a last-stand scenario, where your unit takes 80%
casualties, but then THAT'S IT. They're done. The survivors go off for
reassignment or therapy...
> Actually, we are slowly getting geared up with some newer equipment.
I
> hear they are considering a general issue of M203 grenade launchers
Our government is finally realizing that because our military has been so cut
down in size, and there are so few actual combat troops, they should
maximize the effectiveness of what we've got - they are supposedly
adopting policies to increase the lethality of our troops. Issuing grenade
launchers on a wider scale is possible when you are only talking about a few
thousand troops. Canada actually has only about (nominally) nine battalions of
infantry. Total. I figure the US Marine Corps Reserve has more combat power
than we do.
> strategic point of view. He determined that while the location had
I'm sure you're right, but it makes a much more interesting story to think of
the hordes of Yanks frothing at the mouth just over the border, chanting
"Manifest Destiny, Manifest Destiny!":)
> there at all. Unless, of course, the Americans had planned the
Hey, the Canadian General Staff had active plans for the defense of Canada
against an invasion from the United States well into the 1930's. We didn't
become such close allies until the WWII era. When Canada had problem in our
Western provinces in the latter part of the 19th century (the Riel
Rebellions), the US would not allow our troops to deploy into the west along
US railroads carrying their weapons, so they went by
canoe/boat/portage/horse etc. They walked, 1500+ miles through our
arctic winters. This was one of the experiences that prompted Sir John A.
MacDonald (our first Prime Minister) to push for the building of our first
trans-continental railroad - and didn't endear our Governments to each
other. Same with the US support of the Fienian raiders who planned to take
over Canada for the Irish. There were several incidences of Finian Militiamen
staging raids into Canada, being beaten back by the Candian and British troops
stationed here, and then having their train tickets home
payed for by the US Gov't. This was in the post-civil war period.
> There was the incident of the SAS patrol of 8 guys in the Gulf who
None, actually. They had set up an observation post and were discovered. The
local troops deployed to hunt them down, and they didn't have time to call for
a helicopter extraction. So they fought a "disengagement" action
- see the movie HEAT for that type of scenario. You know that the
advisor
for the big bank robbery and gunfight scene in HEAT was an ex-SAS
trooper -
he corriagraphed (?? I have no idea how to spell that...???) the fight
sequences based on what the SAS teaches about fighting a disengagement...
Anyway, in the GZG FH, I assumed that various sessionist states would be
placated by having units carry their names...
Which is why you'll never see a 10th Nebraska Armored. Who cares what
Nebraskans feel? ;->=
The_Beast
By the way, I got way behind in my list readings; between the comments about
US southerners, Aussies, and Brits, I've been splitting my sides continuously
for about half an hour. YOU GUYS CRACK ME UP!
PPS. Just saw Soldier yesterday. RE: Genetic soldiers, it was an interesting
feeling if not much on details. Can hardly wait for those of you SGII boys to
pick it up for scenarios.
John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net> on 10/24/98 12:18:37 PM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)
Subject: Re: [DS and SG] Regiments of the Crown
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> The "Civil War" styles (State names, usually in the format "XYZth
John,
In many cases you are correct. However, the 7th Volunteer
Michigan Cavelry (Custers Regiment) was turned into a regular unit, the 7th
U.S. Cavelry Regiment after the Civil War.
For additional information contact:
> John and Roxanne Leary wrote:
> > both anscestors of today's National Guard regiments. Regular Army
> In many cases you are correct. However, the 7th Volunteer
Teach me to generalize about unit histories in the United States Army. Strike
and revise to "do not usually trace".
> On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
Or helicopters that don't fall out of the sky with no prior notice...:( It's a
mark of the bravery of Canadian troops that they still fly the labradors.
> want) about 15K men. Russians have something like 8K. Part of this
Well, Russian units are self-containing on the regiment level, aren't
they? Isn't this because they don't expect any support from higher up?
> Not that fighting in triple-canopy jungle with untrained undisciplined
This was also before the burst-fire option on the M16A2.
> laserlight <laserlight@mci2000.com> wrote:
Actually, according to one British TV series on the Celts that I saw recently,
the rebel yell is directly derived from Celtic war cries. I don't know how
true this is, but the series narrator seemed convinced.
> Andrew & Alex wrote:
There are a lot of links between Southern culture and Irish/Scottish
culture. Remember that Georgia started as a prision colony, and the
rest of the Southern states started as dirt-farmers, at which the Irish
are much better (and had a much, much larger incentive to leave their homeland
for) than your average Englishman. They tended to settle to the North and set
up shipyards (gross generalization alerts). Anyone with an interest in
Bluegrass and Celtic folk has run across
similarities in the music--I have a song on CD done by an traditional
Irish outfit that I heard on a Bluegrass radio program. You also find a lot of
cultural links in the antebellum Southern gentry's codes of honor
(Compare to Scottish inter-clan warfare).
> Chen-Song Qin wrote:
> Or helicopters that don't fall out of the sky with no prior notice...
:(
> It's a mark of the bravery of Canadian troops that they still fly the
I saw an article about the Irish Defense Forces which this remark reminds me
off. The author noted that according to the manufacturer, every one of their
helicopters should have (statistically speaking) dropped out of the sky by
now.
> > want) about 15K men. Russians have something like 8K. Part of this
To a certain extent. Russian regiments can be compared to a round of
ammunition--the shell can be reused, but you gotta expend effort. Or you
can simply discard and load a new one into the rifle.
Randall spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
For the benefit of accurate history, Gwyn Dyer (a Canadian Historian) rightly
pointed out that it was in fact not *really* the Canadians the burnt down the
whitehouse. It had far more to do with the British Regular Army units than
with any particular Canadian contribution. Our irregular forces just can't be
considered to have been responsible, with any sort of an objective eye.
> 1st Battalion, Alabama Territorial Regiment (The Queen's Own
The Duke of Nashville? Now that is rather humorous.
Interesting outlook. Probably somewhat akin to what would actually be
assembled from the polyglot of forces available.
/************************************************
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > Of course, in WWII, it was 50,000 rounds per KIA. In Vietnam,
Sure. And the point I think remains though. Volume of fire is useful, but only
if applied at the right time. Otherwise its just rounds into the air. (or
ground, or trees).
> > And 1 Company of Snipers, if anyone learned anything from the 20th
In most of the wars (from the Civil War on up), sniper training has varied in
length. Let us take Vietnam for example. Marine snipers
initially had 3 days of training and were left sniping with M1-Cs and
M1-Ds from the previous wars. Some got Winchester Model 70s. Scopes
were problematic. (This is early to mid-war). Army snipers got 5-7
days training. Some of them used scoped standard M-16s, and M-14s.
But this was the nature of trying to train snipers during a war. In all cases,
you had to qualify expert in basic to get into sniper school. BUT, it didn't
seem to take that long to turn good marksmen into snipers. Especially the ones
pulled from in country. By the late
war, the Army was using Remington M700s with Match Ammo and 3-9x
Scopes (sometimes starlight) and the Marines were using M-21s with
the same scope. Both were 7.62mm. But even then training was a MAXIMUM of
three weeks. So making great snipers isn't apparently an act of huge huge
amounts of training, just a lot of raw talent and then opportunity to practice
in the field (most of the time, less than a year, due to rotations out of
country). But by the end of Vietnam, as many as (maybe) 2200 snipers had been
trained. And this is in a program that did not start until late war. Some of
these snipers had over 90 confirmed kills, and over 200 probables. In the late
war, their was a sniper formation attached to each division. I believe it
might have been a Company (I can check). Most of the time, each platoon in the
Marine and Army divisions had a sniper team available. And (unlike my prior
comment), they figure that for about 20,000 rounds expended by snipers, they
killed nearly 10K targets.
If I could read history (and some can), and saw the effect of snipers from the
Roman age up to the latest wars, I think I'd be a fool for trying to put
together a formation without an organic sniper component. You may have to
recruit from Kentucky mountain boys, Colonials who hunt for a living, and
other sorts that are out in the bush a lot, but the pool is big enough (given
the # of colonies and the small, professional armies being fielded) to assure
at least a sniper presence. Only takes one team on a battlefield to put enemy
command, artillery, and comms units at risk.
Tom.
/************************************************
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
Given, but if your armour and weapons mean that (similar to the British in
various Zulu type scenarios, or some US Cavalry with Gatling gun vs. Native
American scenarios) you can pile the bodies around you in racks and have
little risk, then that may be acceptable. I wasn't necessarily talking 10 to 1
difference, just say
that a future company is maybe 10-15% lighter in manpower because it
has a 50% tech edge.
> > getting the new American Javelin (?) anti-tank missile. That's a
It'll end up like the Carl Gustav though.... you won't be able to get really
good with them because they'll be so damn expensive we won't let you fire
them.... (I've seen many an ex where the Carl Gustav was not fired due to the
expense, and I understand this is in spades with TOW). Now I wasn't a reg, so
I don't have the same budget. But in Canada, we never seem to want to spend
money so I suspect the Regs have real tight control of expensive munitions
too.
> We had the plans on the books until the 1930s, when Roosevelt went
Some thinker at the Pentagon must have a new set. Otherwise how can you get
our mineral and timber resources (the water you get just by pumping out of
lake Michigan)? (grin)
/************************************************
> For the benefit of accurate history, Gwyn Dyer (a Canadian Historian)
Unfortunately this is true. I think it was British regular army units staging
out of Bermuda who actually burned down the Whitehouse. This raid was in
response to the burning of York (now Toronto) by the Americans, however, and
we like to sneak in the thought that we had something to do with it...
Of course if the tanks were painted red and white the rest of Nebraska what be
more than happy to tell the world how they feel.
GO BIG Red!
Michael Brown
----------
From: devans@uneb.edu
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 1998 12:31 PM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [DS and SG] Regiments of the Crown
Anyway, in the GZG FH, I assumed that various sessionist states would be
placated by having units carry their names...
Which is why you'll never see a 10th Nebraska Armored. Who cares what
Nebraskans feel? ;->=
The_Beast
By the way, I got way behind in my list readings; between the comments about
US southerners, Aussies, and Brits, I've been splitting my sides continuously
for about half an hour. YOU GUYS CRACK ME UP!
PPS. Just saw Soldier yesterday. RE: Genetic soldiers, it was an interesting
feeling if not much on details. Can hardly wait for those of you SGII boys to
pick it up for scenarios.
John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net> on 10/24/98 12:18:37 PM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)
Subject: Re: [DS and SG] Regiments of the Crown
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> The "Civil War" styles (State names, usually in the format "XYZth
John,
In many cases you are correct. However, the 7th Volunteer
Michigan Cavelry (Custers Regiment) was turned into a regular unit, the 7th
U.S. Cavelry Regiment after the Civil War.
For additional information contact:
Capt. Dale Vinton, Cav. Btln. CO, <dvinton@ca0501.caso.ca.blm.gov>
Bye for now, John L.
begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(C4$`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <`
M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$
MD 8`( $```$````,`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````1P``````
M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````$941UI'+4Q 8F]L=&]N+F%C+G5K`%--
M5% `1E1'6D<M3$!B;VQT;VXN86,N=6L``!X``C !````!0```%--5% `````
M'@`#, $````5````1E1'6D<M3$!B;VQT;VXN86,N=6L``````P`5# $````#
M`/X/!@```!X``3 !````%P```"=&5$=:1RU,0&)O;'1O;BYA8RYU:R<```(!
M"S !````&@```%--5% Z1E1'6D<M3$!"3TQ43TXN04,N54L````#```Y````
M``L`0#H!`````@'V#P$````$`````````I0P`02 `0`G````4D4Z(%M$4R!A
M;F0@4T==(%)E9VEM96YT<R!O9B!T:&4@0W)O=VX`F@P!!8 #``X```#.!PH`
M&0`3`!X`%0```#X!`2" `P`.````S@<*`!D`$P`<`"H```!1`0$)@ $`(0``
M`#9$,C0T-S(W-S4P,$)%,3%"1C%!-44W-D$Q-S@S.3,R`/P&`0.0!@!$" ``
M% ````L`(P```````P`F```````+`"D```````,`+@```````P`V``````!
M`#D`H$T6]I `O@$>`' ``0```"<```!213H@6T13(&%N9"!31UT@4F5G:6UE
M;G1S(&]F('1H92!#<F]W;@```@%Q``$````6`````;X`D/865KU%`6PE$=*B
MM^58,M;G50``'@`># $````%````4TU44 `````>`!\,`0```!$```!M:VMA
M8G)O=T!W8V\N8V]M``````,`!A"M!:=I`P`'$(4%```>``@0`0```&4```!/
M1D-/55)314E&5$A%5$%.2U-715)%4$%)3E1%1%)%1$%.1%=(251%5$A%4D53
M5$]&3D5"4D%32T%72$%40D5-3U)%5$A!3DA!4%!95$]414Q,5$A%5T]23$1(
M3U=42$591D5%``````(!"1 !````K 8``*@&``!D#0``3%I&=<R?;T7_``H!
M#P(5`J0#Y 7K`H,`4!,#5 (`8V@*P'-E=&XR!@`&PP*#,@/%`@!PW')Q$B '
M$P*#,P/&$^BZ-!2=?0J ",\)V3L7CW@R-34"@ J!#;$+8&[P9S$P,Q2 "PH4
M@@P!PF,`0"!/9B %H APQ1'P( :0('1H'/ !D/1N:P0@=P20'/ *L N :G0)
M@" 7D2 `<!Z0=UQH:1YP'3,7D',%0&\#'( 'P&)R87-K8?4?(6$%0&(<\ 1@
M'@$=0*,#D1' <'!Y'3!O'3"L96P#(!U"=P6P;!Z07&AO!^ =02) 9@G@; 8N
M"H4*A4=/($))ED<'\ F (21L36D1L6<BH"5@`V!W;B1L"O1L$&DQ.# "T6DM
M,3PT- WP#- I@PM9,3;7"J #8!YP8P5 +2NG"H?7*EL,,"LF1@-A.BRN*R85
M#((@#;!V`'% =6[U(& N"8!U+$\M709@`C 7+H\OFP80= AP9&%Y-BP<8"MP
M;R$P!< R-"$U\#$Y.3@VP#(Z,C,<4%!-,5\M751O`S.?+YM&5$=:1RU,3$ &
MX2)@;BX`T"Z,=6LWKS)N=6)J*V'/.<\OFR6P/U!;1 7P'O+H4T==):%G!W$"
M, 0@FR A'4)#)V\H=S,V*B>'%;(,`2LF06YY=S72KPN '3,[P2XP2#7P21[@
M_000=0> 'I AL05 ,( %$/\(8 0@$? $$$D@`P`?\1_P]R$`!Y$C('4C42$P
M"H4+45YC2D%*T2) $<!V"X!GGB PT!]0!"!+L')R(D&E'5!I!<!N80>!+DX@
MO21L5Q] $; =`!W!:") VGD(8"<BL3#@=C9A$?!_'/ @P!JP'4 @2 <0(6)D
M_BY/(2)P31%*8B#Q"H4@5@,&,202/R [+3X]Q21L5!U07T)E()!3=KT*A4)-
M4QW0-=)(`&<K0-]7\B$A'T ?`4<1;2) *."3'_$7D&%D3'%S.R$AWG0=X GP
M'3,%H&U"<PJ%UP&@"& %0%4%\'-<@1U0ZP2@!)!S-?!!24 `D >0WS7P'O(G
M4$S11^$G4) A(>U;`7,+4!]0=$QR69$`D%\-L%OF!: ", N =4DQ;.\C\06Q
M7&01P&P<@"'2"&&14H!93U4E,%59!?"@0U)!0TL%T$5<L*)0)>U04%-2@$I)
M0'5*`6$'X%,&\%I -F%Y3Q_A!) UP5* 4D4_4$?_"? 2`";@7.%FLUV1'U!7
M\?\$( !P"H4>4A_23'(D$DQRY1T1;EB!;75/80(@,%'_`9 #$$X00S ATPL@
M8=%&P/=I(6("'4!O'.$@( J%4 %M0>%)2 `&X'D$(")A<.4FX&MI$G5P8?,$
M\ GP'TD"3A D;'(O"K)*;V@W`Z >\@@`> !P,. @3 M6<$U!/%H1;&IT; !
M<VHN8FEG9[4$D"YH(3YL$AJP+S:0;B\V]"D`-T W-WAE1FS[5G$?LW "($B!
M(G [KSRX_WOO?/]^#W[)>X^ WX'O@O__?\^%'X8OAS^$"#FBAV-Z3_\\L8=O
MAX^$3XWOCO^+SXS5I&-CB14H8I&21 A@!4R013""+T-33B_ 54Y%0E(ID ^,
M3_^5[Y;_F ^4WYHOFS^<3YD?_YYOGW^@CYU?H4 ^YT$_0D__0U*A?YX_I]^H
M[Z%O<K^KOXNLSW--35* 071K"X#K7/ #H'<K,CHD;':P5B&P(")#:4Q@`R!7
M"L":(DH1>7DP!" H4THR]TW$-?!)0'4'0&'11Q5B`<,`P 5 (EA96AU L,>G
MLM--TD?P;F8`<'1-0'XBD\!<85\A'>-MY!SP5O\&\##0'G V81[R)M!?P0<P
M^QZAI(4LL,<&X%%1`'%Q(-\?\ 6P0K0$<#70)P>A(0#_2;$'0"4PL\ +(+G(
M4H"D4K]*L K!4A$B0$RSL,=D(G#_:Y*VX #0'W--H;M534(B</E*(RUA#="Y
M84O#O:BPQO>PQZ[NK@]NNF:IXK:0(5#_`' B0$NP27%O`U+Q')%-,/<K8;XQ
MJ>!((Y!0@C7P'4+^-U%1N'<F:78@`Y%LX%"0\FQ-02A#9A%=<:17D\#_:5(U
MD3#@64(B8;FSOI(*A?-,LLI(52YET<QVI&8>X%\!@#9A0P.QMB1=1F(29/]:
M0+S5"X"TE$FQ82,`T#] [R1L;. %,%* 1 = N%'.TG?&X,QB4H!"=; \<$,P
Go Big Red.... TARGET! (using Mk1 eyeball sensors)
'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Given, but if your armour and weapons mean that (similar to the
Assuming your career subaltern lets the Engineer take command, of course.:)
> Gatling gun vs. Native American scenarios) you can pile the bodies
Whatever happens we have got The Maxim Gun and they have not.
Perhaps in the future "Power Armor and they have not"
> > That's a SWEET weapon. Lighter than a Dragon, and it can punch tank
That's the beauty of it. I was capable of operating the training simulator
with five minutes instruction, and the guy who was there (some
PFC from the 75th who was actually one of the half-dozen qualified
Javelin instructors in the Army at the time) that basically the only
difference is that with the real thing you have to remember to insert your
earplugs. It's practically idiot proof, and guides itself.
> Some thinker at the Pentagon must have a new set. Otherwise how can
We'll buy it from you. Or straight trade, American Cable stations for timber.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> varied in length. Let us take Vietnam for example. Marine snipers
How many of them got weeded out the hard way? Snipers have a rather steep
learning curve. It's also difficult to train them to the right level if you
don't have a live war to pitch them into to 'sink or swim'. It's also easier
if you start with combat veterans to begin with, as they have presumably
learned how not to attract enemy attention.
> is in a program that did not start until late war. Some of these
Some of them had two before they got smacked themselves, right?
> If I could read history (and some can), and saw the effect of snipers
Right. I'm just hesitant to stick them into formal TO&Es for the following
reasons: 1)My TOs are set up for Dirtside, which doesn't have sniper rules
(Yes, Andrew, I know about yours. I havn't decided whether to make them
official or not in my universe). 2)I don't have any hard numbers for how many
you can reasonably hope to produce in a peace time environment. The Russians
issue a SVD to every platoon and a private is assigned to it almost at random.
This doesn't encourage me think they've got a Gunny Haithcock (or whatever his
name was) in every platoon. 3)Until recently, I didn't have any 6mm sniper
miniatures. I do now. Now I have to sit down and think about this. I've only
got one painted
up Nea Rhomaioi, one painted US Army Modern/Sword of the Messiah, and
one painted Russian/Kievan Russ. Yes, I do save money and painting time
by using M1A2s for Georgians and T-62s and BMP-1s for Free Ukranians.
:)
> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
i don't think you can say that rourke's drift was a situation of 'little
risk'. many, many welshmen died that day.
> I wasn't necessarily talking 10 to 1 difference, just say
erm... future companies won't have a 50% tech edge, because they'll be
fighting other future companies most of the time. tech edges are relative.
the only reasons for different-sized units would be either a major
rethink of field tactics (fairly unlikely without major changes in rifle vs
armour
etc) or changes in c3i. if your lieutenant-with-a-PDA can control twice
as many men as a modern Lt, he may well have twice as many men: cuts down on
the need for Lts.
Tom
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
Wasn't necessarily refering to any particular battle.
> > I wasn't necessarily talking 10 to 1 difference, just say
> > has a 50% tech edge.
I meant, vis a vis today's force. Now you are mistaken in one sense. The most
likely thing I can see to change force composition is economics. If it is
expensive to put men in space (and you aren't shipping them like frozen fish
sticks), then that will probably seroiusly impact force composition. For every
high tech force equally. Hence no imbalance. Only smaller forces doing the
same job.
/************************************************
> Given, but if your armour and weapons mean that (similar to the
Why would he refuse? We all know the Combat Engineers are "fully capable
combat troops" and if he was superior in rank, the career subaltern would be
both legally and morally obligated to surrender authority...:)
> It'll end up like the Carl Gustav though.... you won't be able to get
The key here is simulator training. There aren't any good Carl G. simulators.
The Javelin has very advanced simulators. Sure, firing a simulator won't be
exactly the same as the real thing, but you can get a lot of good training in,
without the expense...
> We'll buy it from you. Or straight trade, American Cable stations for
We'd declare war over that Cable pollution. Damnyanks! Actually, a good war
with the US would probably be good for Canada. We could settle the Quebec
seperatist issue once and for all, and then have our economy built up like
Japan and Germany... I don't know about the culture thing though...
> John "Evil Cultural Imperialist[tm] Atkinson
Breathing constitutes a challenge to some of them, if you aren't of the
correct persuasion politically... like RABID
> i don't think you can say that rourke's drift was a situation of
And they all won a VC...:)
> I wasn't necessarily talking 10 to 1 difference, just say
This comes back to what I said before about the ability to absorb casualties.
If you have one LT running a platoon of 60 troopers with a PDA, you had better
have a set of other people in the platoon who can take over on little notice
OR you protect the LT like crazy (Gorman from Aliens...??? Nightmares
arise!!). We could hypothesize tech sufficient that with good battle computers
and commo tech, one officer and a good AI could control hundreds of troops.
Just hope he doesn't get whacked, or the troops are headless. Special
Operations units like the SAS can get away with having smaller unit sizes
because they are better than everybody else,
and they do everything they can to avoid going toe-to-toe with full size
regular units. They can kick ass well, but when a four man patrol takes a
casualty, it has a much greater effect on the unit's effectiveness, no
matter how good they are, than when a 30-man platoon takes a casualty.
Unless the platoon loses it's officer and there's no capable leader ready to
step into place.... I'm still not convinced that with higher tech will
come much shrinkage in the combat elements of a force - the support
units might decrease, and certainly the density of forces in a given area will
decrease as their lethality increases, but unless you are talking Heinlein's
Starship Troopers, you need bodies on the ground to absorb casualties...
> I meant, vis a vis today's force. Now you are mistaken in one sense.
I think this was the point I was trying to make a couple of days ago. A modern
Brigade can do what a division in WWII could in terms of firepower, etc etc.
Maybe moreso. The Australian military has recognized this and
has decided that the old Brigade/Division/Corps concept is obsolete.
They forsee a lower density of troops in a given area of conflict relative to
what has been the case in previous conflicts, because of the greatly increased
lethality of any given unit. They aren't shrinking their platoons, just saying
that a well trained and equipped modern platoon can do what a company used to,
and so on. You are absolutely right in saying that smaller forces will do a
given job, but I think the units themselves probably won't shrink much (A
platoon of 25 to 40 guys works well from a
human-management point of view - good group dynamics, etc. Smaller and
you suffer too much from casualties, larger and it gets more difficult for one
commander to manage, etc. And if that one commander of a bigger group buys a
farm, the unit has a problem. You don't want the ratio of
leaders-to-led
to become too big, or any casualty amongst the leader group will cause huge
problems in the led group...)
> > 1st Battalion, Alabama Territorial Regiment (The Queen's Own
<snickers in amusement>Yeah, most of these were tongue-in-cheek. You
would have loved The King's Own Memphis Rifles;)
> Interesting outlook. Probably somewhat akin to what would actually be
Cool:)
Here is the TO&E for the Huntsville Rifles:
HHC: 1 Command APC and Team. 3 Air Defense Vehicles (use DSII generic stats),
6 militia squads (Regulars, assorted HQ ash and trash) organized into two ad
hoc platoons, assorted ash and trash vehicles to represent various support and
combat support units, 6 light scout cars (class two vehicles: I used U.K. Fox
scout cars), and 6 APCs armed with light artillery (class 3 vehicles with RAM
mortars)
Alpha Company: Three rifle platoons split into two sections, each section with
two rifle
squads (aka teams armed with IVARs- one section is led by the platoon
leader, the other is led by the platoon sergeant) and one APSW team. Depending
on the scenario, each platoon or section is treated as a unit. All squads are
a mix of regular and veteran troops (2:1 ratio). One heavy weapons platoon
with three sections (Each section has one
GMS-L team and one APSW team- each section is treated as a unit with the
APSW team as the command team). One command section with two teams (0ne is the
company command team,
the other is an air-defense team).
Bravo and Charlie Companys are similar to Alpha company.
A typical combat team for use in Dirt Side would be two companies of infantry
supported by a slice of the HHC and perhaps a company of armor and other
support units as needed. I used BattleTech's House Davion infantry minis for
these troops (the 1:300 scale).